One thing I have noticed about Ti users is that they cannot help but notice inconsistancies within specific arena's. It's like a compulsion, one which seems stronger the more preferential the Ti is.

I suppose this comes from taking things apart and analysing them.

'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
"Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
Piglet was comforted by this.
- A.A. Milne.

This is very accurate, especially as an INTP. I see this a lot in INFJs and ISFJs too, so I'm guessing you have a slight compulsion to do this as well?

Definitely. Im certainly IxFJ and even though Ni and Si are very different im still having some difficulties, people I talk to seem divided on the matter.

'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
"Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
Piglet was comforted by this.
- A.A. Milne.

Definitely. Im certainly IxFJ and even though Ni and Si are very different im still having some difficulties, people I talk to seem divided on the matter.

I feel your pain. Here's a good post on the matter from personalitycafe:

Both Ni and Si function like huge databases of associations. Ni builds associations for contexts and perspectives, while Si builds associations for sensations and images.

Si

On the basic Pi level, when Si "notices" something, it will pull up whatever memories are associated with it. For example, an Si dominant might notice a scent (say, of strawberries) and have it bring to mind any number of related experiences (gathering strawberries with family in the summer, eating strawberry pancakes, etc). via how those experiences related to the Si user and what they meant in context.

On a more complex level, an Si dominant would then subconsciously associate their perceptions as memory recognition, which will bring up multiple sensory memories... and then sift through those memories to find the one most applicable to the current situation. At that point, they end up with a model by which to operate in the new context, which explains the consistency that Si is famous for (at the moment that Si chooses the most applicable memory, it comes up with an existing perspective which makes everything clear).

Ni

On the basic Pi level, when Ni "notices" something, it will bring up the state of mind / way of thinking associated with what it notices. For example, an Ni dominant might notice a scent (say, of strawberries) and have it bring to mind any number of related associations (gathering strawberries with family in the summer, eating strawberry pancakes, etc) via how those associations related to the Ni user and what they meant in context.

On a more complex level, an Ni dominant would then subconsciously associate their perceptions as pattern recognition, which will bring up multiple perspectives... and then find a way to reconcile these perspectives together into the one answer that is most like the new condition to create a prediction. If that succeeds, they end up with a comprehensive way of looking at the entire situation, which explains the "aha" moments that Ni is famous for (at the moment that Ni manages to merge the perspectives together, it comes up with a new perspective which makes everything clear).

I feel your pain. Here's a good post on the matter from personalitycafe:

Would functions affect consistancy in the sense of an aquired skill? So you become good at something then maybe you go away from that skill for a while, but then you come back and you have one of those 'it's coming back to me' moments?

I suppose this is more to do with cognition in general maybe or neurology. In any case im bad at that, if I stop doing something I get bad at it almost instantly, the worst is when I do something or paint something so amazingly well the first time round, but I cant for the life of me ever repeat it again.

But thanks for the descriptions, I would say I relate to Si more from that. I do get 'Aha' moments but they are rare, usually I just build off what I already know and have experienced.

It's possibly why, when stressed, I often get annoyed at my lack of originality or problem solving skills because I recognise im simply going back over what I already know or what has been taught to me before and it's very hard for me to come up with a new initiative or way of doing/thinking something. Maybe this is a product of a Si-Ti loop as identified by Lenore Thomson?

'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
"Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
Piglet was comforted by this.
- A.A. Milne.

I would've guessed that being able to recall a certain skill would be easier for Si than Ni, but your last paragraph about lack of originality strongly points towards Si.

Perhaps you could look at your inferior function to help determine what your dominant function is. For instance, do you use Ne or Se more? Looking at your inferior function may be very difficult and might not help you at all, or maybe it really will help you. Just an idea.

Also, could you link me some stuff about Lenore and what he has to say about loops? It sounds really interesting

I would've guessed that being able to recall a certain skill would be easier for Si than Ni, but your last paragraph about lack of originality strongly points towards Si.

Perhaps you could look at your inferior function to help determine what your dominant function is. For instance, do you use Ne or Se more? Looking at your inferior function may be very difficult and might not help you at all, or maybe it really will help you. Just an idea.

Also, could you link me some stuff about Lenore and what he has to say about loops? It sounds really interesting

It's a she and sure, ill try to find some info online, although I can quote from the book. I think I have Ne not sure if it is inferior but I think it is, most people on vent will tell you that I at least have Ne.

As for Lenore she gives really good examples of representations on what would be called Dominant and Tertiary/inferior loops, although I cant remember if she specifically uses that word. But a lot of her analysis of the types and their problems involves pointing out that it stems from people ignoring their auxiliary and jumping right into their tertiary/inferior in conjunction with their dominant.

So for example an ISFJ who gets caught up in a Si-Ne loop becomes obsessed with the whole system breaking down because of one flaw. Or if in a Si-Ti loop, becomes obsessed with analysis of their motives and the flaws inherent within, or they use it to reinforce their view as being correct because they see the connections of the system and how it fits together as being right or making sense, without due consideration towards others.

'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
"Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
Piglet was comforted by this.
- A.A. Milne.

It's a she and sure, ill try to find some info online, although I can quote from the book. I think I have Ne not sure if it is inferior but I think it is, most people on vent will tell you that I at least have Ne.

As for Lenore she gives really good examples of representations on what would be called Dominant and Tertiary/inferior loops, although I cant remember if she specifically uses that word. But a lot of her analysis of the types and their problems involves pointing out that it stems from people ignoring their auxiliary and jumping right into their tertiary/inferior in conjunction with their dominant.

So for example an ISFJ who gets caught up in a Si-Ne loop becomes obsessed with the whole system breaking down because of one flaw. Or if in a Si-Ti loop, becomes obsessed with analysis of their motives and the flaws inherent within, or they use it to reinforce their view as being correct because they see the connections of the system and how it fits together as being right or making sense, without due consideration towards others.

How did she determine that people get caught up in these loops? Just through counseling these people?

How did she determine that people get caught up in these loops? Just through counseling these people?

I really ought to spend time gathering information for you so as to give better answers, but I believe that it was mainly through observation unfortunately, although she does frequently reference Dario Nardi's neuroscience.

I believe she is an INTJ and thus a lot of her information is arrived at through what I would say are intuitive guesses or leaps, which is to be expected from a dominant intuitive. Though the inclusion and reference to Nardi's stuff seems to be an example of Te.

'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
"Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
Piglet was comforted by this.
- A.A. Milne.

I really ought to spend time gathering information for you so as to give better answers, but I believe that it was mainly through observation unfortunately, although she does frequently reference Dario Nardi's neuroscience.

I believe she is an INTJ and thus a lot of her information is arrived at through what I would say are intuitive guesses or leaps, which is to be expected from a dominant intuitive. Though the inclusion and reference to Nardi's stuff seems to be an example of Te.